- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A hundred school shootings a year wouldn't change my mind
Posted on 5/25/22 at 11:55 am to mindbreaker
Posted on 5/25/22 at 11:55 am to mindbreaker
quote:
so go ahead give me a good use for these in modern life right now that cant be accomplished with a handgun. and you are demonstrating the biggest problem with the argument from your side anyway.
I can't shoot a gong from 1000m with a handgun
quote:
Multiple people in here have offered multiple different ideas and every response amounts to "nuh-uh I don't like it it's stupid" or "It won't do anything anyway why bother". And this is the crux of the political spectrum in this country right now. All or nothing every time and we keep spinning our wheels while fringe extremist lunatics commit atrocities.
This just isn't true. Some dude gave me a rundown of his allegedly practical solutions, and I told him a good place to start would be convincing Americans of his good faith motives.
The reality is that a lot of gun owners are willing to "accept" these tragedies because the alternative is letting bad faith individuals punish law abiding people while making minimal inroads in curbing actual gun violence. That's true.
Personally, I think posting a cop at a school or arming teachers is band aid stuff, but so are partial gun bans. Which leaves the options of a) trying to address why kids are doing these things in the first place, which "root cause" obsessed people don't want to do (strangely), b) a complete gun ban, which presents massive stability/logistic/feasibilty questions or c) doing nothing.
Circling back to the ineffectiveness of your semi-auto rifle ban, there's almost no question this crime could have been accomplished (and quite easily) with modern semi-auto handguns. So then you're at the point where you go "well, he couldn't buy handguns, they're illegal!" and I go "Well, he killed 19 children, which is quite illegal" and you go "well it may have been harder for him to get them" and then we're pretty far out there as to whether this guy's criminal activity could have really been curbed or not.
Meanwhile, you've gone and taken the guns from millions of people who don't hurt anyone, and the related social strife that comes with it, for a long shot chance at limiting or delaying a crime in Texas. And in that time, rest assured countless handgun crimes would have occurred, since you've done nothing to address the underlying issue nor stem the major source of gun crime.
1
Posted on 5/25/22 at 11:57 am to Clames
Lol your article literally cites the author of my article.
The quote YOU pulled actually says experts don’t agree on the numbers. There is a difference of 3 million to 108k
The quote YOU pulled actually says experts don’t agree on the numbers. There is a difference of 3 million to 108k
Posted on 5/25/22 at 11:59 am to grizzlylongcut
How about the thread title?
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:01 pm to Clames
quote:
I never said it was a high bar you dishonest shite. It's supposed to be easy, as it should be for every individual civil right. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to plead the 5th, none of that should have a high bar. Is that hard for you to understand for some reason?
Dishonest shite? LOL. I know reading comprehension is not a strong suit for you. You literally said "You think gun-control advocates haven't had a plan to chip away at the 2nd Amendment and effectively banning gun-ownership by making the process too onerous and expensive for all but the wealthy elites and governments since the 1970's?" The 400 million firearms in the country would show your theory is laughably wrong.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:05 pm to BugAC
Fourth post in this thread with 94 upvotes
Fifth post in the thread with 98 upvotes
quote:
These people are crazy that talk about "mental health" screenings for gun purchases. If you wanna put your rights in the hands of the government on what constitutes adequate "mental health" be my guest. On an anti-depressant???? No gun for you On adderall for work/school? No gun for you Saw a psychiatrist in an Inpatient facility once? No gun for you You're a hardcore MAGA guy, that could be seen as some mental instability to some people??? No gun for you
Fifth post in the thread with 98 upvotes
quote:
There are a rather large population of mental health "professionals" out there that think owning a firearm is a clear sign of being mentally unwell.
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:05 pm to Clames
quote:
So yes, when looked at widely, self-defensive use of firearms is extremely common. Maybe if you weren't such a lazy sack of crap you'd have a deeper understanding of this topic and I wouldn't have to spoon-feed it to you.
You might want to continue reading that whole paragraph:
quote:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
The CDC is basically saying the current research on defensive gun use is not exactly reliable and has a lot of questionable assumptions and processes that led to their conclusions.
The Kleck study has also been specifically gone into detail about the methodology issues (which was a phone survey, conducted with 5000 people mostly in Florida, assumed 100% honesty and no false positives, that simply asked if they had a gun and if they used it for defensive purposes successfully, and extrapolated the results to the general US population). They extrapolated that to equaling nearly 2 million annual defensive gun uses and nearly 100,000 criminals successfully shot in the act if such results were accurate. But that would essentially require homeowners to have to have defended themselves from over 100% of reported robberies a given year, and the number of reported incidents and criminals shot as trespassers, even assuming a incredibly high escape rate, is an order of magnitude compared to what is actually reported.
Needless to say, the Kleck and Cook survey's are not exactly reliable studies to hang your hat on...If we are being academic here
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:09 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I can't shoot a gong from 1000m with a handgun
no but you can with a hunting rifle I'm not advocating for banning them. As far as the assault rifle/semi automatic rifles. I just don't see the point of owning them besides they are cool to shoot. You don't know if as many people would have died if he had a handgun instead. Way harder to handle and shoot accurately without training. What is your argument for keeping them then. Not all solutions are going to stop this. But sensible ones may curb some. Hell I'll even compromise and say keep the semi's but you must go through a 30-day background check and training course to own one.
So yes banning them won't stop this all together. But acting like getting rid of them would have zero effect on curbing mass shootings is also disingenious.
You get circling back to crime and violence in general. The issue at hand today is mass shootings and school shootings. Those are overwhelmingly carried out with assault style semi automatic weapons.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:09 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
There is a difference of 3 million to 108k
If you read the passage properly, you'd notice that they are talking about the extreme spread but agree that the true number is closer to the middle and that defensive use of firearms is NOT rare, which your article disagrees with. I posted a link to something objective, you failed because you're a hack and dishonest moron that can't accept that his pro-gun-control propaganda is nothing but bullshite.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:11 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
where the hell is this
It's part of the background check. It asks about your mental health history. If you select yes on any of the questions, you have to get signed off by your mental health provider at least in Louisiana. Problem I see is that it is more of an honor system. I don't think health records will come up in a background check unless they caused criminal issues. The system I proposed will flag you just for getting mental health care of any kind. That way there is no form to lie on because the authorities knowing about your mental health is not dependent on what you care to share.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:12 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
I'm saying that they would if they could.
But what does it matter if women and queers on twitter would want to take you guns away from you? They cannot do it. Plain and simple.
I've had this same talk with my dad, both of us avid hunters. Hell my brother was the founder of Diamond Archery. I grew up around guns and hunting and like having them. He always talks about the government taking his guns away. Just because some weirdos on twitter have strong opinions that you hate, doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's not even remotely close to happening. What started our back and forth was you said by god you are certainly going to shoot some bad person from coming your house? Nobody is going to stop you from doing that. There is not a law in place that is close to stopping you from doing that. I tell my dad this and he say "well hell son you know you know they're letting women with dicks swim versus women now."
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:15 pm to Areddishfish
quote:
It's part of the background check. It asks about your mental health history. If you select yes on any of the questions, you have to get signed off by your mental health provider at least in Louisiana. Problem I see is that it is more of an honor system. I don't think health records will come up in a background check unless they caused criminal issues. The system I proposed will flag you just for getting mental health care of any kind. That way there is no form to lie on because the authorities knowing about your mental health is not dependent on what you care to share.
I read you as saying you have to get sign off to get CC. I understand your point, but a ton of people who may or may not have some issues have no diagnoses (nor the introspection to speculate) and thus can answer honestly without involving a physician. So in that regard, I think it's very different than everyone having to get sign off.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:15 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
no but you can with a hunting rifle I'm not advocating for banning them
Semi-automatic rifles are also hunting rifles, so your distinction here is meaningless.
quote:
I just don't see the point of owning them besides they are cool to shoot.
Well that's your personal problem since you don't know, or apparently care to know, the relevant applications in sporting, competitive, and defensive use. Your ignorance does not support your point no matter how proud you are of it.
quote:
You don't know if as many people would have died if he had a handgun instead.
Yes he does because one of the worst mass shootings was Virginia Tech where the shooter used two handguns.
quote:
Hell I'll even compromise and say keep the semi's but you must go through a 30-day background check and training course to own one.
See, once again the gun-control nut doesn't know what the word "compromise" means.
quote:
Those are overwhelmingly carried out with assault style semi automatic weapons.
No they aren't. Handguns are the most commonly used according the the FBI data on active shooter incidents in the last 20 years.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:15 pm to Clames
quote:
but agree that the true number is closer to the middle
Who agrees?
Not Cook et al.
quote:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed
You know what the word disputed means?
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:18 pm to Areddishfish
quote:
The system I proposed will flag you just for getting mental health care of any kind.
Yeah right. Do yourself a favor and read up on H.J. Resolution 40 that Trump signed in 2017. Read the letters supporting that resolution from the ACLU and numerous mental health advocacy organizations. Then maybe you'll think better of your suggestion one you begin to understand the pitfalls.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:19 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
You get circling back to crime and violence in general. The issue at hand today is mass shootings and school shootings. Those are overwhelmingly carried out with assault style semi automatic weapons.
They're not. Mass shootings, as defined liberally so our media can talk about how common they are, don't usually happen in schools. They usually happen outside a shop in Chicago or somewhere else you never hear about.
But even if we stick to school shootings, we're makings sweeping gun policy changes to potentially curb a drop in the bucket of deaths. And the response is "yeah, but they're kids and it's worth it, just do it, save one life, etc. etc." And that's fine, I get the sentiment. But yeah, I can't separate that when the same people won't take the same approach for the much more common and pervasive lapses that allow violence in this country - like DAs not prosecuting crimes, letting violent criminals out of jail, refusing to invest in police, whatever.
If that's whataboutism, I'm fine with it. Caring about one and doing nothing about the other is stupid, and what's more, it shows the twisted motives of those who want to strip liberties from the 99% to try and impact the 1% who are clearly unbeholden to law.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:19 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
tell my dad this and he say "well hell son you know you know they're letting women with dicks swim versus women now."
he has a point tho….progressives never stop pushing for the extreme.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:22 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
But what does it matter if women and queers on twitter would want to take you guns away from you? They cannot do it. Plain and simple.
I've had this same talk with my dad, both of us avid hunters. Hell my brother was the founder of Diamond Archery. I grew up around guns and hunting and like having them. He always talks about the government taking his guns away. Just because some weirdos on twitter have strong opinions that you hate, doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's not even remotely close to happening. What started our back and forth was you said by god you are certainly going to shoot some bad person from coming your house? Nobody is going to stop you from doing that. There is not a law in place that is close to stopping you from doing that. I tell my dad this and he say "well hell son you know you know they're letting women with dicks swim versus women now."
Unfortunately its sort of where we are as a society and this is where I put on my Boomer cap and shake my fist at social media, internet "news," and modern corporate news.
There is a tendency to mentally frame everything these days in a zero sum, us vs them fashion and to extrapolate and assume the loudest and most extreme voices on either side represent not only the prevailing opinion of the other side, but are somehow the secret power brokers of that party/group.
When in reality the 20,000 post count trans activist on Twitter holds literally 0 real world power in any political institution of power. So them screaming about ban all guns is an exercise in futility engaging, and fallacious reasoning to ascribe any sort of powerful agency within nay real corridor of political power, cause they have almost none.
The only real proposals for any sort of real reform are on the margins of the current status quo: expanded background checks, licensing, increased restrictions on certain weaponry, expanded enforcement etc.
There is literally no point in even having the discussion about a nationwide gun ban as it is literally not in the cards.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:23 pm to Clames
quote:
Semi-automatic rifles are also hunting rifles, so your distinction here is meaningless.
Playing the semantics game here I see you know exactly what the hell I was referring to but you are more concerned with being correct than having and honest discussion.
quote:
Well that's your personal problem since you don't know, or apparently care to know, the relevant applications in sporting, competitive, and defensive use
Oh please elaborate on what these are for the rest of us ignorant people?
quote:
Yes he does because one of the worst mass shootings was Virginia Tech where the shooter used two handguns.
Yay you found the one in the last 20 years that goes against my argument while ignoring the rest. Good job
quote:
"compromise" means
I guess your definition of the way i want it or nothing is more your speed then
quote:
FBI data on active shooter incidents in the last 20 years.
Active shooter =/= mass shootings you are grasping at straws here but by all means continue
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:24 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Not Cook et al.
Of course not. He, like Hemenway, Azrael, Wintemute, Kellerman, and many others) have made their careers and a cottage industry propping each other's "research" and gun-control advocacy for over 30 years. Guess it never occurred to you in reading hundreds of such studies, like I have over the years, that the same names keep popping up? No? That's right, you're an idiot and you don't have a clue because you've never read the actual studies, just bullshite articles that dumbed it down and drew even further erroneous conclusions to make it easier for you.
quote:
You know what the word disputed means?
Yes I do, unlike you I have the IQ to properly parse the context in how it is used here. You see, the EXACT number is disputed (and at the extremes) because it's really an unknowable number. What is agreed on, and what is stated in the passage, is that what isn't disputed is that a high number of defensive gun uses do occur in context of comparison to criminal usage. Cook et al is a rabid pro-gun-control advocate so of course you would cherry pick his work...
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:28 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
he has a point tho….progressives never stop pushing for the extreme.
I mean I don't think dudes should be swimming with chicks either, I agree with him there. I'm just saying he gets upset about "the government taking our guns away" when the government is actually not taking guns away. Don't get me wrong in thinking that I agree with our governments policies on most things, I'm just saying that as frustrating as someone might get or as mad as someone might get over the thought, it's not happening. Random people with strong opinions on twitter aren't making the decisions and passing laws.
Page 16 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News